Benchmark: Teste array concat

Script Preparation code:

var num1 = [1, 2, 3];
var num2 = [4, 5, 6];
var num3 = [7, 8, 9];

Tests:

Push
Array.prototype.push.apply(num1, num2); Array.prototype.push.apply(num1, num3);
Concat
num4 = num1.concat(num2,num3);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Push
Concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the provided JSON benchmark definition and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of two different approaches for concatenating arrays: using `Array.prototype.push.apply()` (referred to as "Push") and using the `concat()` method (referred to as "Concat").

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two main options being compared:

1. **`Array.prototype.push.apply()`**: This approach uses the `push()` method in conjunction with `apply()` to concatenate two arrays. The `push()` method adds one or more elements to the end of an array and returns the length of the resulting array. The `apply()` method applies a function to an object (in this case, an array) by calling it with an array of arguments.
2. **`Array.prototype.concat()`**: This approach uses the `concat()` method to concatenate two arrays.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each option:

**Push**
- Pros:
	+ Can be more efficient for large arrays, as it avoids creating a new intermediate array.
	+ May be faster due to the fact that it modifies the original array in place.
- Cons:
	+ Less readable code, as it uses an often unfamiliar method (`apply()`).
	+ Not suitable for small arrays or non-numerical data.

**Concat**
- Pros:
	+ More readable and maintainable code, as it's a straightforward method call.
	+ Suitable for both large and small arrays, as well as non-numerical data.
- Cons:
	+ May be slower due to the creation of an intermediate array.
	+ Requires more memory allocation.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage mentioned. However, `Array.prototype` is used in both test cases, which implies that these methods are part of the standard JavaScript API.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. Both approaches rely on existing standard JavaScript methods and data types.

**Alternatives**

If you were to write similar benchmarks for other array concatenation methods, some alternatives could be:

1. **Using `splice()`**: This approach would involve using the `splice()` method to remove elements from an array and then adding new elements.
2. **Using a custom function**: You could write a custom function that iterates over one of the arrays and adds its elements to another array.
3. **Using modern JavaScript methods (e.g., `flat()`, `fill()`)**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might explore using more recent methods like `flat()` or `fill()` for concatenation.

I hope this explanation helps software engineers understand what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark definition!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Mac OS X 10.13.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Push	833888.3 Ops/sec
Concat	4.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Teste array concat (version: 0)

Testando perfoamnce de array concat e push

Comparing performance of: Push vs Concat

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Push

Concat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):